<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>NCES What's New</title><link>http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/</link><description>For the latest in events, developments, and updates to the NCES website, check back here often.</description><language>en-us</language><category>education</category><category>statistics</category><category>data access tools</category><category>libraries</category><category>schools</category><category>colleges</category><item><title>National Indian Education Study Part I Available May 14 on the NAEP Website</title><description><![CDATA[The National Indian Education Study (NIES), first conducted in 2005, is a two-part study designed to describe the condition of education for American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students in the United States. Part I of the NIES will be released on May 14, providing in-depth information on the academic performance of fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students on the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics and reading.
NIES provides data on a nationally representative sample of American Indian and Alaska Native students in public, private, Department of Defense, and Bureau of Indian Education funded schools. It is a reliable source of data for educators, administrators, and policymakers who address the educational needs of our students.
Part II of the study was conducted through a survey to explore the educational experiences of the fourth- and eighth-grade AI/AN students who participated in the NAEP assessments. The survey focused on the integration of native language and culture into school and classroom activities. Results of the 2007 survey will be available in the summer of 2008.
The study is sponsored by the Office of Indian Education (OIE) and conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics for the U.S. Department of Education.
NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics within the Institute of Education Sciences.
]]></description><pubDate>5/6/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nies/</link></item><item><title> Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Human Resources Data Quality Study </title><description><![CDATA[The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and quality of human resources (HR) data collected through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) from postsecondary institutions in the academic year 2004-2005. The 2004-05 IPEDS HR data collected in the Salaries (SA) and Employees by Assigned Position (EAP) components were compared to HR data from several external sources. An assessment of the 2004-05 IPEDS Fall Staff component was also made; however, the assessment involving the Fall Staff component differed from the assessment involving the IPEDS SA and EAP components because the reporting of Fall Staff data was optional in 2004-05 while the reporting of SA and EAP data was required in 2004-05 for Title IV institutions that met the minimum criteria for applicability. After taking definitional differences, data elements, and comparable institutions into consideration, HR data from the IPEDS SA component and HR data from the external sources were fairly consistent with one another. Where data for 9/10- and 11/12-month full-time faculty members could be separated, data for 9/10-month faculty members were more consistent between the data sources while data for 11/12-month faculty were somewhat less consistent. Detailed data (by gender and academic rank) were less likely to be consistent from one report to another than were overall totals or averages. The HR data from the IPEDS EAP component that were compared to the HR data from the external sources revealed very small to large differences depending on the data element evaluated. The analysis of the executive/administrative/managerial staff reported to IPEDS and to external sources revealed large differences, which were most likely related to the lack of common definitions between the sources. Overall, the 2004-05 optional year Fall Staff component data were at least as accurate as the original 2003-04 required year data submissions for both degree- and non-degree-granting institutions. ]]></description><pubDate>5/5/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008150</link></item><item><title>An Exploratory Analysis of the Content and Availability of State Administrative Data on Teacher Compensation </title><description><![CDATA[This report identifies state education agencies (SEAs) that maintain records on pay for public school teachers, the comparability of these records, and whether the data might be available to the research community. The report finds that many states maintain teacher-level records with earnings and other teacher characteristics, and are willing to share these data with researchers. It is feasible to use teacher employment and compensation data collected by SEAs to conduct large multistate comparative studies of teacher pay. These studies would not only permit overall comparisons of pay, but also comparisons of teacher pay at various points along typical career trajectories, with breakdowns by teacher demographics and state or district characteristics. ]]></description><pubDate>4/29/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008601</link></item><item><title>Teacher Career Choices: Timing of Teacher Careers Among 1992-93 Bachelor's Degree Recipients</title><description><![CDATA[This report uses longitudinal data from the 1992-93 Baccalaureate and Beyond Study (B&B:93/03) to analyze the teaching career choices of 1992-93 bachelor's degree recipients. As of 2003, some 87 percent of graduates reported not teaching in 1994, 1997, and 2003 (nonteachers). Of the 13 percent of graduates who were teaching at one or more of the three follow-up interviews, 31 percent taught consistently, 41 percent were late starters, 16 percent were leavers, and 12 percent were other teachers.  The report also provides an in-depth look at the teacher career choices of those graduates with various demographic characteristics, academic backgrounds, teaching assignments, and salaries.  Among those who taught, graduates with dependents in each year (1993, 1997, and 2003) taught consistently at higher rates than graduates without dependents.  Most graduates who taught consistently had majored in education for their bachelor's degree (77 percent). On the other hand, 40 percent of education majors were not teaching at the elementary/secondary level in 1994, 1997, or 2003. Many of the 1992-93 graduates who became teachers had earned a master's degree or higher by 2003 and had done so at higher rates than graduates who did not teach: 39 percent of graduates who taught had attained a master's degree or higher by 2003, compared with about one-quarter of those who did not teach. The results in this report may inform research on teacher supply and demand, teacher attrition, and teacher retention. ]]></description><pubDate>4/29/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008153</link></item><item><title>Parent Expectations and Planning for College: Statistical Analysis Report</title><description><![CDATA[This report uses data from the 2003 National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) Parent and Family Involvement Survey (PFI) to examine the characteristics associated with the educational expectations parents had for their children and the postsecondary education planning practices families and schools engaged in. The results presented in this report are based on a sample of students in grades 6 through 12 who represented the 28,182,000 students in grades 6 through 12 in the United States in early 2003. The data revealed that roughly nine out of every 10 students (91 percent) in grades 6 through 12 had parents who expected them to continue their education beyond high school, with about two-thirds (65 percent) having had parents who expected them to finish college. Other findings presented in this report show that about one-third (32 percent) of students had parents who perceived that their child's school did very well at providing information to help their child plan for postsecondary education. Finally, among students whose parents expected them to continue their education after high school, 82 percent had parents who reported that the family was planning on helping to pay for their child's postsecondary education costs, and among those whose parents reported that the family was planning on helping to pay the costs, 66 percent had parents who reported that they had enough information about postsecondary education costs to begin planning. ]]></description><pubDate>4/22/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008079</link></item><item><title>Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2005-06 (Fiscal Year 2006)</title><description><![CDATA[This brief publication contains basic revenue and expenditure data, by state, for public elementary and secondary education for school year 2005-06. It contains state-level data on revenues by source and expenditures by function, including expenditures per pupil.]]></description><pubDate>4/15/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/expenditures/</link></item><item><title>Findings from the Pilot Teacher Compensation Survey: School Year 2005-06</title><description><![CDATA[This brief publication contains summary data from the research and development effort to collect individual salary and demographic data on public school teachers. Seven states participated in this effort: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Data from full-time public school teachers who teach at only one school were included in the analysis. Median salaries and counts for different groupings by experience, age, race, and gender are presented.]]></description><pubDate>4/10/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008440</link></item><item><title>The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2007</title><description><![CDATA[This report presents the results of the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing assessment. It was administered to a nationally representative sample of more than 165,000 eighth- and twelfth-graders from public and private schools. In addition to national results, the report includes state and urban district results for grade 8 public school students. Forty-five states, the Department of Defense schools, and 10 urban districts voluntarily participated. To measure their writing skills, the assessment engaged students in narrative, informative, and persuasive writing tasks. NAEP presents the writing results as scale scores and achievement-level percentages. Results are also reported for student performance by various demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, gender, and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program. The 2007 national results are compared with results from the 2002 and 1998 assessments. At grades 8 and 12, average writing scores and the percentages of students performing at or above Basic were higher than in both previous assessments. The White -- Black score gap narrowed at grade 8 compared to 1998 and 2002 but showed no significant change at grade 12. The gender score gap showed no significant change at grade 8 compared with previous assessments but narrowed at grade 12 since 2002. Eighth-graders eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch scored lower on average than students who were not eligible. Compared with 2002, average writing scores for eighth-graders increased in 19 states and the Department of Defense schools, and scores decreased in one state. Compared with 1998, scores increased in 28 states and the Department of Defense Schools, and no states showed a decrease. Scores for most urban districts at grade 8 were comparable to or higher than scores for large central cities but were below the national average. Trend results are available for 4 of the 10 urban districts. ]]></description><pubDate>4/3/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008468</link></item><item><title>Comparison Between NAEP and State Assessment Results: 2003</title><description><![CDATA[Two new research and development reports compare state and NAEP assessment results in reading and in mathematics, based on data from 2003 and earlier assessments. For each state, three aspects of student progress are addressed:<br><br>
* Where the state standards fall on the NAEP scales for grades 4 and 8;<br>
* How much progress the state made toward the NAEP equivalent of the state&#8217;s standards, from the earlier assessments to 2003;<br>
* How much the racial/ethnic achievement gaps in each state have changed during this same period. <br><br>

These two-volume reports also compare the NAEP findings with similar findings reported by each state on its own assessments. In each report, the first volume introduces the strengths and limitations of the study&#8217;s methodology and data sources, and the second volume contains detailed findings for each state, introduced by an explanation of the state profiles. <br><br>

Download these reports:   
Comparison Between NAEP and State Mathematics Assessment Results: 2003<br>
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008475<br>
Comparison Between NAEP and State Reading Assessment Results: 2003<br>
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008474<br><br>

To read more about research comparing NAEP and state and NAEP standards, see<br>
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/researchcenter/statemapping.asp<br> 
A related report is available at
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2007482.asp]]></description><pubDate>4/2/2008</pubDate><link>http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=031</link></item></channel></rss>
